"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Parable About An Unrepentant Son (or Sinner)

In a place called Vineyard there lived a Father and two adopted sons. One day the Father told the sons He would be leaving the Vineyard, but He would certainly return at a future time. He left instructions for the boys that the Vineyard was to be tended, and the grapes were to be harvested. There was no doubt both sons loved their Father, and there was no misunderstanding as to their mission - they were to harvest the grapes.

Over time, however, the sons had families of their own and soon many people from the the two son's families were in Vineyard harvesting the grapes as instructed by their Father. Eventually one of the sons, named Order, noticed his brother was not washing the grapes the way Father had taught them. Worse, all of those in brother's family were washing the grapes in the same manner - different from Order's way.

Order gathered his own children who were in the Vineyard and instructed them again in the proper way to wash grapes. Order spent hours that first day teaching his children the way Father had instructed them to wash grapes. The next day Order gathered his kids around and taught them again the principles of proper washing. Some of the young children who listened to Order were scratching their heads - they had always washed their grapes the way Father had taught them and were confused as to why they were being kept from the Vineyard to remind them of their Identity.

Soon, the reason for Order's ways were clear. Order 'order'ed his family to not associate with his brother's family in the Vineyard. He informed them that those grapes being harvested by their kin were possibly not part of a legitimate harvest because they had not been properly washed. Some of the more rebellious and independently-minded children of Order objected. The Vineyard was the Father's Vineyard, they said, and we are but stewards. Do not brother and his family answer to the Father and not to you, dear Order?

Order was livid. In his mind his own children were losing their Identity and a Rennaissance of what it means to be part of Order's family was needed. Order told his free-thinking children that if they did not have pride in being part of Order's family, they should leave the Vineyard. The children of Order responded, quite directly, that the issue was not disagreement with Order, but whether or not they would obey orders to not cooperate with their brother's family harvesting the grapes.

Order then pulled out all the stops against his brother and his brother's family by saying to all of Order's kids - "Our brother and his children are unrepentant sinners and we have been told by Father not to associate with the unrepentant, but to treat them as publicans. They do not belong in the same Vineyard with us." Some of Order's kids heard this and thought Order had lost his mind. Some wondered how Father would react when He found out Order called the Father's son an unrepentant sinner. Others in Order's family were embarrassed that those outside the Vineyard - people who didn't understand how the family operates - might think Order spoke for the whole family. One wise son of Order, however, won the day by speaking up when Order announced the need for an intensive Renaissance of Order's ways.

"Order," said the wise son, " Do you honestly believe it wise to take all of your kids out of the Vineyard to protect them from the brother's faulty methods of washing? Have you ever considered the fact that brother will one day answer to Father, and it might be best for us who are part of Order's family to work side by side with our brother's family, washing the grapes the way Father taught us, but concentrating on the harvest rather than identifying brother as an 'unrepentant sinner?'"

Order loudly rebuked the wise son in front of all the family, and even suggested the boy didn't understand the ways of Order. He implied the boy might be a secret member of brother's family; or worse, not even someone who should be in the Vineyard in the first place. Brother's family heard all the arguments on the Order side of the field and began to wonder why Order's family fought so much.

Right then, in the midst of all the debate and arguing among Order's kids, Father returned.

When Father asked for an accounting of the harvest in the Vineyard, Order proudly told Father that he had done his best to keep Order's family washing the grapes properly. When Father asked why the Harvest was low, Order proudly explained that when brother's family began to depart from the proper mode of washing grapes, he had withdrawn all of Order's kin from the Vineyard in order that he might rebuke them for associating with brother's family who were washing grapes improperly.

When Father heard from Order all the problems between brothers in the Vineyard, He called for the brother in unrepentant sin to stand before Him to give an account for his actions.

I wrote in my own blog recently: Thanks to the remnants of Hurricane Humberto, I discovered on my motorcycle ride home Thurs and Friday of last week that there is precious little difference between sprinkling and immersion.

Good point. So many on this board argue against a Dr. Yarnell strawman or caricature instead of actually looking at what he said. I got frustrated in the last thread because most were not actually dealing with the problem. Many were ignoring it while others were just attacking Dr. Yarnell. I enjoy people like David Rogers and Micah Fries (sp?) because even though I disagree with them on points of doctrine I can still have an intelligent discussion with them.

We do love to get sidetracked by the things we are most comfortable working with from the more difficult, more important things, don't we?Grapes first - fuss later.

I would guess that most if not all of the previous commenters at least went back to the Rogers-Yarnell conversation. I did and it left this layman feeling the same way about Dr. Yarnell's views. I am sure he is a fine, godly gentleman and an inspired professor, but I find myself siding with those who have actually been out doing the harvest for my how-to's and inspiration, if only because that seems to be the tough part.

Michael: I have seen your blog and actually think you have some good stuff, I wish you would bring more creativity and less rhetoric to this blog. You are actually a very bright young man and I agree with some of what you say on your site. So I can't understand your difficulty both with this parable or other issues you seem to have. Doctrinally you seem very close to what I personally believe. With minor differences.

Thanks for the complement, it does mean a lot. But I am curious as to which parable you are speaking? The one I referenced over at the Outhouse? or, John chapter 6? It is all narrative.

But here is the sad thing Debbie, I line of up with most of Wade's expressed doctrinal beliefs. What I do NOT believe in is his desire to "cooperate" with anyone and everyone in order that a vote might be thrown his way. I am "set apart" for Christ. I will be that way if I am the only Christian left on earth. I do not need to cooperate with the tares. God will gather them up one day for the fire. I will do that which I am called to do. God will do the rest.

So, if Wade would like to discuss relevant missional topics like orality, cultural relevancy, alcohol use, in a cooperative, agenda less spirit, then I will be the first to offer my constructive, loving, cooperative opinion, in the spirit of great commissional work all to the glory of Christ our Redeemer.

But while he continues to wage this bloody campaign (through the use of other pastors and collaborative blogs) I shall be ever present in spirit (if not in tongue).

Just as Jesus was told his disciples were not washing their ‘grapes’ as instructed supposed by the Father, the leaders of the SBC are upset that some of its members are not minding the BFM 2000 and not believing the Bible as instructed.

These leaders have stopped workers by removing from the harvest over 100 missionaries.

They are rejecting potential workers on petty ‘washing’ of baptism, prayer language, weight, and old conventions of Texas and Virginia.

The harvest of salvations is at its lowest, and when the Father ask why, who will answer him?

Every popular or controversial blog has trolls...KMC is simply one of them. He speaks ignorantly but vehemently, which is the type of combination that usually riles people up. It usually stems from simply wanting attention. In response, I suggest we all simply ignore his diatribes and get back to talking about things that really matter. If he wants to really join the conversations with something relevant or productive then he is more than welcome, but until then it's better to just let him do his thing without responding.

Personally, I think it's a little confusing when missionaries post anonymously, but I understand their rationale. There are plenty of countries that don't block blogspot, but block blogger (and vice versa). Either way, if you live in those countries, you would run into problems registering an alias. It is confusing reading anonymous posts though...like are the two anonymous posts above from the same person or not?

Anyways, to help clear up your dispute over what is/isn't a troll, here's the wikipedia definition:

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

I know Wade. You do not. You are correct in one thing about him and incorrect on another. You are correct in that he will not go away. He is a fierce bulldog when it comes to what is right - but he is completely kind and gracious to those who disagree with him. Unless those who disagree begin to exhort force and power and control to get others to conform. When that happens, watch out - he knows exactly what he is doing. Someone has characterized him as velvet steel. You are incorrect about something else concerning Wade. He has NO desire to be SBC President. Just like he had NO desire to be BGCO President. Have someone tell you the story someday of how he was elected. Everybody in Oklahoma campaigns for the position. Not Wade. Not once did he tell a soul - even his wife according to what I heard. Yet, he was elected.

He does not care for power or a political position. That is why he is able to accomplish so much.

Oh, one other thing you may not be able to understand. Wade could eaat your lunch, but I would assume from reading your comments that he has pity on you for your ignorance and stupidity. He only goes after those who who knows through experience and education should know better.

Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but I did not understand Dr. Yarnell's statement to say that those GCCs that were not doing rituals the way Baptists do them were "lost" but that they were doing it wrong. Hence, since, in his opinion, they were not obeying Scriptural instruction, they were sinning, and since they were continuing to do it incorrectly they had not repented, or turned from their erroneous way. I don't "think" that he said that they were "publican-types" in the sense of not being Christian brothers.At any rate, seems we are straining at gnats on both sides here and some love and hugs would be helpful. Thanks.Rick

"He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:10-13

Given this verse, we need to treat fellow believers who act in good conscience to interpret the Bible as under the guidance and correction of the Holy Spirit. While we might not understand why the Holy Spirit has permitted them to express a doctrine that seems quite different than ours at points, we trust that the Holy Spirit will work with ALL of the redeemed to complete our knowledge of Christ Jesus and to create unity not through forced conformity but through THAT completion of knowledge. We prayerfully anticipate that day and will work with other groups to accomplish that completion of knowledge and that unity.

Well, he wasn't that old, and he certainly was anything but dear, but goodness knows he was persistent.

Our small church had recently had a pastor leave, and Mr. T had decided that every deacon, including myself, whose head had not burst into flame at the mention of this pastor, was in a criminal conniving conspiracy to bring the man back who had apparently grieved this man to no end.

Every time this man met me, EVEN AFTER he had left the church for good (big surprise there), he had to ask me if we had tried to get that pastor back yet. No, "How are the kids?" or, "How're your dogs?" but, "Is that preacher coming back yet?"

I find the picture accompanying KMC's comments and blog to be very revealing.KMC asked what someone thought about him. I think he spelled it out himself in capital letters beginning with a C!It must be so nice to be a Calvinist and know at a very young age absolutely everything for absolute sure.Mac McFatter

"Given this verse, we need to treat fellow believers who act in good conscience to interpret the Bible as under the guidance and correction of the Holy Spirit. While we might not understand why the Holy Spirit has permitted them to express a doctrine that seems quite different than ours at points, we trust that the Holy Spirit will work with ALL of the redeemed to complete our knowledge of Christ Jesus and to create unity not through forced conformity but through THAT completion of knowledge. We prayerfully anticipate that day and will work with other groups to accomplish that completion of knowledge and that unity."

Given your post above I guess you are against calling Arians, nestorians, JWs, Mormons, and even Gnostics heretics and in unrepentant sin. The best church historians of today agree that the Arians believed in God and Jesus Christ and interpreted the Bible (in good conscience) the way they thought was true.

If you've even read a few of my other posts, BH, you know that isn't my position. And, if the Holy Spirit chooses to tolerate those who take those positions in order to gradually bring them to complete knowledge of Jesus Christ, who are you to argue?

And what if we are wrong? Aren't you appreciative of the grace you are currently receiving that covers your incomplete faith?

I was just showing the problems with your argument. But the Bible tells us to claim that JC is the only way and I will not back down from that. I will ll them they are wrong. I think the HS compels me to do that.

And sure i do not know everything. I have never said I do. But you are not saying that an Arian or Mormon is most likely saved. Right?

Wayne,

i did not know I was one more than one person. And I have read Eph. 4. You know that in Eph. 4 that we have a unity in one Lord and one faith AND ONE BAPTISM. Hmmm.

Bob,

I did not know Mormons were Christians. But I hope you tell lost people that they are lost and taht you speak the truth to even other Christians in love.

I want to say to all that i just want all of you just to think about what Dr. Yarnell and people like him are saying. Think about your theology on baptism and how important baptism is in scripture and think again.

I've specifically been using "all of the redeemed" as an intentional allusion to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 Article VI last sentence. That is the way that article refers to the universal church.

My personal belief is that the groups you mention are all off track from the portions of the Gospel directly addressed in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed, so it's a stretch for ME to consider them Christian. (I see those early creeds dealing with the most central issues of the Christian faith.)

But the Bible says that those who call on the name of Jesus will be saved. We know from Hebrews that those in the Hall of Faith had saving faith that was forward looking: they aren't saved through a prior knowledge of the name of Jesus. So I've speculated (not doctrine, just thought) that anyone who calls on God for deliverance (I will assume that the Holy Spirit has first convicted for the sake of this speculation) has called upon Jesus since his name means (assuming Iesus transliterates to Yeshua) "God delivers."

I don't witness that way. I typically use the Roman Road because I love Paul's systematic theology that's presented there.

But, as I said, I don't feel we're in the position to judge (in the condemning sense). We should be ready to earnestly and accurately present the faith as it has been given to us. We can speak truthfully and honestly about what we believe without apology. I don't even have a problem with expressing that we choose the Baptist expression of faith because we feel it hews the most closely to the faith given to us through Jesus by the apostles in the writing of the NT.

But my tummy gets all queasy when I hear arrogance flow. And referring to one of "all of the redeemed" as an unrepentant sinner should not be done lightly and should only be done at the demand of the Holy Spirit. While historically we see a lot of people picking doctrines to divide on, my sense is that the time is nearing where we are about to be united with a completed knowledge of Christ Jesus.

I honestly hope that we will be told why the Holy Spirit has permitted so much division. I think it is done with reason, but I suspect it is like the permission to divorce. As Jesus explained it, it was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts.

I hope I answered both your out-loud questions and any concerns that the earlier post raised. My calling is as a layman to be a "bridegatherer" (and bride preparer) based on the story of Abraham commissioning his servant to find a wife for Isaac as told in Genesis 24. I see the Bride as one and division grieves me deeply.

I’ve never seen it happen in 75 years, but last Sunday, I saw a person baptized twice. Or was she baptized twice?

That’s the question I have for anyone who wants to answer.

The first time, the pastor called the person by her sister’s name. As she left the water, her mother corrected the pastor. He asked the congregation what he should do. No one said a word. He asked the girl if she wanted to be baptized again, and she said yes.

Has that happened to any of you pastors, and what would you do if it did?

I don't know if you meant to do it RR, but I see a deep point to be made in your story.

All this "baptist nonsense" majoring on the minors can really be frustrating.

I would like to see KMC or Volfan answer you with a "clear teaching from scripture" since they have the market cornered.

Another interesting occurence would be if she accidentally called the pastor by his name but made a mistake and said the name of an "unrepentant sinner" pastor...like maybe a Presbyterian pastor, for example. (sarcasm!)

...would her baptism be valid then???

Off the top of my head, I would simply say that nothing should be done except an apology perhaps in privacy afterwards. Wouldn't any other action (like doing it again) bring more weight to it than it requires? I don't know. I'm asking also.

If it were me, I wouldn't care. It's not about my "old name" anyway. I am putting off the old and I am ready for the new. Or I should be.

So you want my thoughts? It doesn't matter. If they don't baptize again, chalk it up to human error. It is not like the Bible is clear on what to call the candidate for Baptism. But, if they want to do it again--praise God.

As for majoring on the minors--well praise God for that too. That just means one has already figured out the majors. We should each be on a never ending quest for knowledge, truth, and the Jesus Way. Just because you do not want to learn, does not mean the rest of us are arrogant. Just means that you have stopped using your brain. Critical and contemplative thinking can only serve to make you a better Christian. That is unless you negate the truth of the infallible, all-sufficient Word of God.

"This has been kmichael, your guest host on today's edition of 'The Bible Answer Man,' Hank will be back next week. We now go back to the blog posts for the next question..."

Very thoughtful post and answer to me. (I pretty sure it was an in response to me). i personally think Yarnell's language is a little too extreme. But I think his point can be made without the harshness of saying that those who hold to infant baptism are "unrepentant sinners."

But i think where we disagree is that I do not think the 'when' of baptism is a minor issue. It is a major one. And for Baptists infant baptism is not real Biblical baptism. For most i would say infant bpatism is not baptism at all. So how much can one fellowship with one who says he is a Christian and not baptized? What is a 'Christian' supposed to be called who is unwilling to be baptised and teaches someone not to be baptised also.

See the 'when' of baptism has been very important to baptists. So it is a betrayal of a baptist distinctive to not care so much about it.

Now the early church seemed to not care so much about the when of baptism but Baptists have. And they have stressed that the when of baptism could cause one not to have been baptised at all BECAUSE of the Bible.

I guess to me my main point is that it just seems very unBaptist to not care about the when of Baptism. Some will say that they care more about what the Bible says then Baptist tradition. but Bpatist tradition is supposedly based on the bible alone. And this distinctive in baptism is not just one of many but the main distinction for Baptists compared to infant baptizers(who almost everyone else was).

So how Baptist is a church or denomination which the when of baptism is not that important? Have Baptists been wrong for centuries?

No. And I have never said that they did. In fact i have said the Dr. Yarnell's language is too harsh. What I have said also is that Baptists traditionally would state an answer closer to yes than no to your question.

But to answer your question again no except for the fact that we all sin and we never repent all of it. But i do not think that is what you have in mind.

Praise God for giving you the ability to handle a difficult situation to the Glory of God. You really have your hands full handling the other situation called Rex. I am praying for you in your Ministry jhere in Bonham.

I disagree with the use of the term "unrepentant sinner". And many, many great Christians are not Baptists. But many here keep talking like there are a bunch of Presbyterians who would be surprised and hurt to know that Baptists don't consider infant baptism correct. And many seem to say that baptism is not, when everything is said and done, something very important doctrinally.

Meanwhile, right now, on puritanboard, there is one of innumerable discussions about how truly Reformed people (especially the original Westminster divines) consider Baptists as merely belonging to a sect and that Baptist baptism is not baptism at all.There are lots of Reformed people that we don't have to worry about cooperating with, because they never had the slightest intention of cooperating with us anyway. They think we are, putting it delicately, wrong.

I never said he did not witness and that he was not a good christian or whatver. I was just making a point that we need to speak to all other truth in love. So we should not be like those on some websites who degrade so many and have no Christian love. i have been on those sites and argued against them. But we cannot commit the opposite error and not speak the truth at all and just ignore the problems we have with others and their theology. We have to speak the truth in love.

Now you called Bob a gentleman. i concur. However you called me Blackhog which i guess demonstrates you are not a gentleman yourself.

CB Scott is a Man of God and has a Love for the Lord that most people would have to reach up to touch ground just to be able match the Integrity CB has.If you would avail yourself to check thing out instead of jumping to conclusions, you would be a Wiser Man. As Paul told us to test all things.

Bob does know Mormons are not Christians. Mormons are going to Hell if they do not come to Christ in faith as Savior.

Bob was not making such an argument. Anyone beyond second grade would have easily realized that. You are far beyond second grade. You go to a fine seminary. You were just being coy or rude to my friend.

Bob is such a gentleman he does not repay rudeness in kind. I, on the other hand, am not much of a gentleman at all. I tend to challenge rude behavior where and when I find it.

I have few friends left. I did not have many with which to begin. Bob is my friend.

You and I can be friends. Just do not be rude toward Bob. That was and is my whole point.

Therefore, you now know I did think about the impression I wanted to make.

But many here keep talking like there are a bunch of Presbyterians who would be surprised and hurt to know that Baptists don't consider infant baptism correct. And many seem to say that baptism is not, when everything is said and done, something very important doctrinally.

Who exactly has said the above things at all Karen? That is not what is being said at all. At least not from what I have read and my reading comprehension is pretty good. There are many Presbyterians who have and do cooperate with Baptists, so I am not to worried about a few on a message board.

Dear Anonymous,You said, “I don’t know if you meant to do it RR, but I see a deep point to be made in your story. All this “Baptist nonsense” majoring on the minors can really be frustrating.”

Yes, I wanted to point out the way that ‘Pharisee ruling’ is taking place in the SBC, someday rulers might reject her from being a missionary because her name was wrong.

That thinking would be the same as putting ‘importance’ on the one doing the baptizing instead of the importance between a child of God and their Savior in obedience to His command.

Because of the child’s wish and her mother video-taping, I believe RMS did the right thing, but the second ‘baptizing’ was not necessary because Jesus knew her name the first time.

Yesterday, while visiting the 50 year anniversary of a church, I saw another ‘first’ for me in seeing a young robust preacher using a chair for most of the preaching. (What’s the world coming to?) BTW, he did well on preaching, “Kept the main thing [Jesus] the main thing”, but is there a double standard when the congregation in showing reverence was required to stand for all the songs?

RMS, did you hear my sister’s first-grade grandchild and his buddy decided not to go back to school because it cut down on their play-time? No amount of reasoning influenced his buddy. In desperation his mother told him, “If you don’t go back to school, the police will arrest your father and me and put us in jail!” Very concerned, the boy said, “How long will you be gone?

Maybe that’s what’s wrong with youth today—the Bible says to reason with a child is folly.

"CB Scott is a Man of God and has a Love for the Lord that most people would have to reach up to touch ground just to be able match the Integrity CB has.If you would avail yourself to check thing out instead of jumping to conclusions, you would be a Wiser Man. As Paul told us to test all things."

hmm. I was just commenting on him calling me "blackhog." He might be a man of God most of the time but that was not a very good thing to do. I was not saying that CBScott was or was not whatever except that before he calls someone else a derogatory name he might think about how it will make him look first.

It does surprise me though that I am being attacked for telling him to think before he posts while he calls me 'blackhog.' Is this what being a Christian means on this blog? If so I want none of it. You can keep it.

Yes I knew that Bob did not believe Mormons are Christians. But that was kind of the point. But I have no real way of knowing what Bob believes or does not believe. But I do not see how me asking him a simple question about his post is as rude as calling me a name. The question even though it was obvious was to make a point. Your comment was just to be rude. Again if that is the Christianity on this blog then y'all can have it.

Okay. I did not think I was reading into your position anything but what you had stated in your posts. I put in my response "I think" giving you the option to state "No you have misunderstood me . . ." I do not see what is so unkind about that?

I guess Blackhaw is the proverbial "blacksheep" around here. I am just trying to have honest discussions. That is all. Remember that this is a blog and we both can only understand one another through what is written. And sometimes this means that we will misunderstand one another. I am very analytical and do analyze things alot. I often see problems on both sides of most positions on things. That is why I am on neither side when it comes to the Patteson/SWBTS vs. Ben Cole Blog debate.

First I found myself defending against the position that somehow I was treating Mormons et al. as being part of the redeemed when I never said that. Then I found myself asked what I should do about baptism being a minor issue when I hadn't said that, either.

My heart is this: when we are at the wedding feast we will be unified through a completed knowledge of Christ Jesus. I'm going to guess that in the completion of our knowledge that some of the stuff we get all excited over now will straighten itself out.

If on that day we're told the pedo-baptists got it right on baptizing infants (not that I think it is likely, but imagine with me), are you going to stomp out of heaven and tell God he's wrong?

If you wouldn't do it there, then we should leave room for imperfect knowledge now. That is not an argument to tolerate willful heresy. But I'll argue that there are several faith traditions that we're far closer together with than apart from once you tune down the rhetoric over these issues where we arguably have imperfect knowledge.

Should we teach believer's baptism by immersion and practice it in our churches for all that seek membership? I honestly don't have a problem with each of the faith traditions remaining consistent in teaching and practicing faith as it has been handed down to them. I would prefer that each faith tradition acknowledge the imperfect understanding we have today and avoid what Bob Cleveland aptly referred to as throwing rocks at each other.

But I also think it's a worthwhile endeavor to do as Piper has done at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis: ask the question again and lead the church (local ekklesia) in Berean fashion to fully reconnect itself with the reasoning that leads us to act as we act now. Maybe it's time to acknowledge through admittance by statement of faith that confirmation is intellectually the same action as believer's baptism for those whose parents in faith baptismed them as infants. We could even say that we prefer to admit via believer's baptism or offer a congenial adjunct relationship for those that--of good conscience--believe that the combination of pedo-baptism and confirmation is adequate. Or the local ekklesia could re-affirm its stance that it will continue with believer's baptism but seek opportunities to work together with those from other traditions.

When you look at it that way, the term "unrepentant sinner" may short circuit the desire that God has to reason together with us in guiding Christ's Bride to a full knowledge of Christ Jesus. And I think we might even emphasize the importance other Hebrew connotations of the verb "to know" in that context.

And...no...I'm not just saying "yada, yada, yada". ;)

Greg Harvey

P.S. My apologies to Wade for continuing after I said I would stop. I certainly prefer not to give casual readers of this blog the impression that I believe I deserve to be heard from more often than the author of it.